UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte JENNIFER MARKET and GARY D.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte JENNIFER MARKET and GARY D."

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte JENNIFER MARKET and GARY D. ALTHOFF Appeal Technology Center 2800 Decided: October 23, 2009 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and ELENI MANTIS- MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL

2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1, 5 through 19, 21 through 29, and 31 through 33. We affirm in part. INVENTION The invention is directed toward a method of processing acoustic signals from a downhole measurement system for drilling operations. See paragraphs 0023 and 0024 of Appellants Specification. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: acquiring, in a borehole, propagating wave data to include a plurality of coherent time-domain signals; separating modes in the plurality of coherent time-domain signals to form a plurality of separated modes by first identifying coherent peaks in the plurality of coherent time-domain signals and second extracting portions of the plurality of time-domain signals that include the coherent peaks; generating frequency coherence information for each of the plurality of separated modes; combining the frequency coherence information for each of the plurality of separated modes to form combined frequency coherence information; and displaying the combined frequency coherence information. REFERENCE James H. McClellan, Two-Dimensional Spectrum Analysis in Sonic Logging, 1986 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, (1986). 2

3 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 12 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 5 through 19, 21 through 29, and 31 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by McClellan. ISSUES Rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 Appellants argue on page 10 of the Appeal Brief, 1 and page 2 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner s rejection of claims 12 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is in error as the claims are drawn to an article of manufacture, a storage media, and as such meet the requirements of being concrete, useful, and tangible. Thus, Appellants contentions with respect to the rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101 present us with the following issue: have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred determining that independent claim 12 is directed to non-statutory subject matter? Rejection of claims 1, 5 through 19, 21 through 29, and 31 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) Appellants argue on pages 11 through 13 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner s rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is in error. Appellants 1 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Brief dated August 22, 2007 and Reply Brief dated January 21,

4 assert that the independent claims recite identifying coherent peaks in a plurality of time-domain signals and extracting portions of the time-domain signals that includes the coherent peaks. Appellants argue that McClellan does not teach this feature. Thus, Appellants contentions with respect to the rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 102(b) present us with the following issue: have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred determining that McClellan teaches identifying peaks in coherent time-domain signals and extracting portions of the signals that include the peaks as claimed? FINDINGS OF FACT 1. McClellan teaches a spectral analysis for use in sonic logging of a fluid filled borehole. Abstract. 2. McClellan depicts in Figure 2, typical signals that may be received from a constant diameter borehole surrounded by homogeneous symmetrical cylindrical formation. Page 3110, section McClellan teaches using a slowness (inverse velocity) time analysis to analyze the wave forms. Slowness Time Coherence (STC) is also used to analyze the received waveforms. The STC process requires analysis of slowness time plane (shown in Figure 3 as a plot of semblance vs. slowness and window position) to determine significant peaks. The peaks are then analyzed to determine individual wave components. Page 3106, section 3. 4

5 PRINCIPLES OF LAW [A]n applicant may show that a process claim satisfies 101 either by showing that his claim is tied to a particular machine, or by showing that his claim transforms an article into a different state or thing. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 961 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), cert. granted, 77 U.S.L.W. 3442, 3653, 3656 (U.S. June 1, 2009) (No ); see also Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972). Further, while a claim may be drawn to a machine, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101, the analysis to determine patent-eligibility is not complete. See In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Despite the apparent sweep of Section 101, the Supreme Court has held that certain categories of subject matter are not entitled to patent protection. Benson, 409 U.S. at 67. In the most recent majority opinion addressing 101, the Supreme Court explained that there are three categories of subject matter for which one may not obtain patent protection. These judicially-created exceptions are laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). The Federal Circuit has further recognized that the Court s precedent suggests the mathematical algorithm exception [an example of the abstract idea judicial exception] applies to true apparatus claims. In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Thus, the mathematical exception analysis used in Benson... applies equally whether an invention is claimed as an apparatus or process, because the form of the claim is often an exercise in drafting. Id. (quoting In re Johnson, 589 F.2d 1070, 1077 (CCPA 1978) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 5

6 If a claimed machine (or article of manufacture) 2 involves a mathematical algorithm, then we must determine whether the scope of the claimed invention encompasses one of the judicially-created exceptions. This determination of claim scope requires that we make two inquiries: (1) Is the claim limited to a tangible practical application, in which the mathematical algorithm is applied, that results in a real-world 3 use 4 (e.g., not a mere field-of-use label having no significance )? 5 (2) Is the claim limited so as to not encompass substantially all practical applications of the mathematical algorithm 6 either in all fields of use of the algorithm or even in only one field? 7 2 Notwithstanding the court s statement in Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1007) ( We have never held that a manufacture is ever required to produce any result. ), if an applicant chooses to claim the manufacture in terms of applying a mathematical algorithm (e.g., Appellants claim 19), then this two-part inquiry applies to determine if the claim is directed to eligible subject matter under Real-world is not sufficient alone to establish patent-eligible subject matter absent tangibility. See Nuijten, 500 F.3d at See Benson, 409 U.S. at 68 (noting that the claim at issue was so abstract and sweeping as to cover both known and unknown uses.... ). 5 See Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1544 (noting that the claim s recitation of a rasterizer for creating a smooth waveform is not a mere field-of-use label having no significance. ). 6 Benson, 409 U.S. at See Bilski, 545 F.3d at 957 (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192 n.14) ( [I]neligibility under 101 cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment. ). 6

7 If the machine (or article of manufacture) claim involves a mathematical algorithm and fails either prong of our two-part inquiry, then the claim is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 101. Ex parte Gutta, No , 2009 WL (BPAI 2009) (per curiam) (expanded panel), at *1. Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Appl. Dig. Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1983). ANALYSIS Rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 Appellants arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in determining that independent claim 12 is directed to non statutory subject matter. Appellants arguments on page 10 of the Brief focus on claim 12 being drawn to a signal bearing medium that includes a tangible storage apparatus and, thus, having a practical utility as part of a computer. Further, Appellants argue that the claim limitations represent a tangible object because the article can be used to create a new machine. We are not persuaded by Appellants arguments. Claim 12 recites [a] signal bearing medium, including at least one of a rewritable storage medium and a non-rewritable storage medium, and encoded with machine-readable instructions, wherein the instructions when read and executed comprise Thus, claim 12 is drawn to an article of manufacture, a storage media. However, the analysis does not end here. As 7

8 discussed supra, if the article of manufacture involves an algorithm, then we must determine whether the scope of the claimed invention encompasses one of the judicially-created exceptions. The Examiner has found that the method steps of claim 12 appear to be useful and concrete but does not produce a tangible result as the outcome of the generating, receiving, processing, extracting, and combining steps have not been used in a disclosed practical application nor made available in such a manner that its usefulness in a disclosed practical application can be realized. Answer 15. Although the useful, concrete, and tangible result test is no longer adequate, Ferguson, 558 F.3d at 1364 n.3, we nonetheless concur with the Examiner to the extent that the claim is not limited to a tangible practical application in which the algorithm is applied. Claim 12 recites an algorithm whereby frequency signals are generated, received, processed, portions extracted, elements are used to generate information which is combined with other information. The claim does not recite what the signals generated and processed by the algorithm represent or how they apply in the real world. Appellants Specification, in paragraphs 0007 and 0023 identify that the signals represent acoustic signals which are transmitted and received as part of a borehole monitoring system. However, claim 12 recites no limitations directed to using the signal processing algorithm for processing acoustic signals or as part of a borehole monitoring system. Thus, we do not find that the claim is limited to a tangible practical application in which the algorithm is applied. We also find that the claim does not meet the second requirement of the test as claim 12 is not limited so as to encompass all practical applications of the algorithm. As discussed, claim 12 does not recite what 8

9 type of frequency signals (e.g. sound, electromagnetic, light, etc.) the algorithm processes. While claim 12 includes a limitation that the instructions are for generating and receiving signals, which suggests that the algorithm operates on a machine, Appellants Specification provides no details about such a machine. Thus, the scope of claim 12 broadly applies the signal processing algorithm to signals generated and received by any device. Further, the limitations of processing the two signals to form coherent signals, forming extracted coherent signals, generating frequency coherence information and combining the frequency coherence information are all abstract concepts implemented using the first and second signals. Thus, we conclude that the scope of claim 12 is such that it forecloses others from using all practical applications of the algorithm in all fields of use (all forms of signals processed by all forms of processing devices). In summary, we sustain the Examiner s rejection of claims 12 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because even though independent claim 12 recites an article of manufacture, the scope of the claim encompasses one of the judicially created exceptions not entitled to patent protection. Rejection of claims 1, 5 through 19, 21 through 29, and 31 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) Appellants arguments have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in determining that McClellan teaches identifying peaks in time-domain signals and extracting portions of the signals that include the peaks. Independent claim 1 recites separating modes in a plurality of time-domain signals by first identifying coherent peaks and second extracting portions of the timedomain signals that contain the peaks. Independent claims 8, 18, 22, and 29 recite similar limitations. Thus, the scope of independent claims 1, 8, 18, 22, 9

10 and 29 recites a method of separating modes by first identifying peaks and then extracting portions of the peaks. The Examiner finds that Figure 2 shows received coherent timedomain signals and that Figure 3 shows separating modes by first identifying peaks in the time-domain signal and extracting the peaks. Answer 16. Further, the Examiner states that the claim does not limit the method to the sequence as argued. Answer 16. We find that the evidence supports the Examiner s finding that Figure 2 shows received time domain signals. Fact 2. We also find that the Evidence shows that the plot of Figure 3 is searched for significant peaks, and a determination is made as to which wave components correspond to the peaks. Fact 3. However, the plot of Figure 3 represents a slowness-time plane. Fact 3. Thus, we do not find that the Examiner has shown that the claimed step of identifying time peaks in a coherent time-domain signal as claimed. Further, we note that the Examiner s claim interpretation is in error as the claims recite that modes are determined by first identifying peaks and then extracting portions, thus as determining modes includes the step of identifying peaks it necessarily follows that the step of identifying peaks is before the identification of modes. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner s rejection of claims 1, 5 through 11, 18, 19, 21 through 29, and 31 through 33 as the Examiner has not shown that the prior art teaches every element of independent claims 1, 8, 18, 22, and 29. With respect to the rejection of claims 12 through 17, we note that the scope of independent claim 12 differs from claim 1 in that claim 12 does not recite determining modes. Claim 12 does not recite that the signals from which coherent peaks are extracted are coherent time-domain signals. Nonetheless, claim 12 does recite that peaks are identified in a frequency 10

11 signal. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Figure 3 depicts a plot of a slowness-time plane. Fact 3. Thus, the peaks detected in Figure 3 are not that of a signal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner s rejection of claims 12 through 17 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 12 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 5 through 19, 21 through 29, and 31 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by McClellan is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R (a)(1)(iv). 11

12 AFFIRMED-IN-PART ELD SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN

Paper No Entered: April 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper No Entered: April 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 30 571.272.7822 Entered: April 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS,

More information

Paper Entered: December 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: December 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571.272.7822 Entered: December 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNIFIED PATENTS INC., Petitioner, v. JOHN L. BERMAN,

More information

Paper 7 Tel: Entered: August 8, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 7 Tel: Entered: August 8, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: August 8, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TOSHIBA CORPORATION, TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC., TOSHIBA

More information

Paper Entered: April 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: April 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Entered: April 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC, Petitioner, v.

More information

Patentable Subject Matter of Medical Treatment in Japan Hitoshi MAEDA Patent Attorney

Patentable Subject Matter of Medical Treatment in Japan Hitoshi MAEDA Patent Attorney Patentable Subject Matter of Medical Treatment in Japan Hitoshi MAEDA Patent Attorney 1 Rejected Claims (Methods) Claim 1 A tinnitus rehabilitation method for providing relief to a person suffering from

More information

Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.)

Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.) Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.) EX PARTE PAULIEN F. STRIJLAND AND DAVID SCHROIT Appeal No. 92-0623 April 2, 1992 *1 HEARD: January 31, 1992 Application for Design

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit GOOGLE INC., Appellant v. INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC, Cross-Appellant 2016-1543, 2016-1545 Appeals from

More information

PATENT LAW. Randy Canis

PATENT LAW. Randy Canis PATENT LAW Randy Canis CLASS 8 Claims 1 Claims (Chapter 9) Claims define the invention described in a patent or patent application Example: A method of electronically distributing a class via distance

More information

Paper Entered: August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9 571-272-7822 Entered: August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD STRYKER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY-AMERICA,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit UNITED VIDEO PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, AND TV GUIDE ONLINE, LLC, AND TV GUIDE ONLINE, INC.,

More information

Paper Entered: June 12, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: June 12, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 35 571-272-7822 Entered: June 12, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HULU, LLC, Petitioner, v. INTERTAINER, INC., Patent Owner.

More information

PATENTING INTERNET OF THINGS (IoT) AND INDUSTRIAL IoT INVENTIONS AFTER ALICE

PATENTING INTERNET OF THINGS (IoT) AND INDUSTRIAL IoT INVENTIONS AFTER ALICE PATENTING INTERNET OF THINGS (IoT) AND INDUSTRIAL IoT INVENTIONS AFTER ALICE Framing an IoT invention in a technological problem-solution construct can be persuasive for patent eligibility. BY ASEET PATEL,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, IPR LICENSING, INC., Appellants

More information

Paper 21 Tel: Entered: July 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 21 Tel: Entered: July 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 21 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD EIZO CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. BARCO N.V., Patent

More information

(12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2004/ A1

(12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2004/ A1 (19) United States US 2004O184531A1 (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2004/0184531A1 Lim et al. (43) Pub. Date: Sep. 23, 2004 (54) DUAL VIDEO COMPRESSION METHOD Publication Classification

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CORRECTED: OCTOBER 16, 2003 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1163 RESQNET.COM, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, LANSA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Jeffrey I. Kaplan, Kaplan & Gilman,

More information

Appeal decision. Appeal No France. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan

Appeal decision. Appeal No France. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan Appeal decision Appeal No. 2015-21648 France Appellant THOMSON LICENSING Tokyo, Japan Patent Attorney INABA, Yoshiyuki Tokyo, Japan Patent Attorney ONUKI, Toshifumi Tokyo, Japan Patent Attorney EGUCHI,

More information

This Opinion is a Precedent of the TTAB. In re WAY Media, Inc.

This Opinion is a Precedent of the TTAB. In re WAY Media, Inc. This Opinion is a Precedent of the TTAB Mailed: June 3, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re WAY Media, Inc. Serial No. 86325739 Jennifer L. Whitelaw of

More information

Paper Entered: May 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: May 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 41 571-272-7822 Entered: May 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD QSC AUDIO PRODUCTS, LLC, Petitioner, v. CREST AUDIO, INC.,

More information

Case 1:17-cv EGB Document 8 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 43 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Case 1:17-cv EGB Document 8 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 43 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Case 1:17-cv-00825-EGB Document 8 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 43 SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP., IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS v. Plaintiff, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-825

More information

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A 7001Ö

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A 7001Ö Serial Number 09/678.881 Filing Date 4 October 2000 Inventor Robert C. Higgins NOTICE The above identified patent application is available for licensing. Requests for information should be addressed to:

More information

Paper No Entered: October 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper No Entered: October 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 57 571-272-7822 Entered: October 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF, LLC, Petitioner,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No. 1:16-cv KMM ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No. 1:16-cv KMM ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS PRISUA ENGINEERING CORP., v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al, Defendants. Case No. 1:16-cv-21761-KMM / ORDER DENYING MOTION

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit LYDALL THERMAL/ACOUSTICAL, INC., LYDALL THERMAL/ACOUSTICAL SALES, LLC, and LYDALL, INC., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HARMONIX MUSIC SYSTEMS, INC. and KONAMI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT INC., Petitioners v. PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION,

More information

Paper Date: June 8, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Date: June 8, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 42 571-272-7822 Date: June 8, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD WESTERNGECO, L.L.C., Petitioner, v. PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS, Patent

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit VIRGINIA INNOVATION SCIENCES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS

More information

Charles T. Armstrong, McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, McLean, VA, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION

Charles T. Armstrong, McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, McLean, VA, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. NEC CORPORATION, Plaintiff. v. HYUNDAI ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES CO., LTD. and Hyundai Electronics America, Inc. Defendants. Hyundai Electronics

More information

Paper No Filed: March 24, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper No Filed: March 24, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 55 571.272.7822 Filed: March 24, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner,

More information

Paper Entered: July 28, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: July 28, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Entered: July 28, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HOPKINS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and THE COAST DISTRIBUTION

More information

Case 1:18-cv RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 44 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 1:18-cv RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 44 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 1:18-cv-10238-RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 44 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY TVnGO Ltd. (BVI), Plaintiff, Civil Case No.: 18-cv-10238 v.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, TV WORKS, LLC, and COMCAST MO GROUP, INC., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-859 SPRINT

More information

Paper Entered: November 30, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: November 30, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 51 571-272-7822 Entered: November 30, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

More information

Patent Reissue. Devan Padmanabhan. Partner Dorsey & Whitney, LLP

Patent Reissue. Devan Padmanabhan. Partner Dorsey & Whitney, LLP Patent Reissue Devan Padmanabhan Partner Dorsey & Whitney, LLP Patent Correction A patent may be corrected in four ways Reissue Certificate of correction Disclaimer Reexamination Roadmap Reissue Rules

More information

No parallel citations in cases; statutory provisions do not need years, unless the point is to identify an old law.

No parallel citations in cases; statutory provisions do not need years, unless the point is to identify an old law. Appendix 2: Citation Formats Dick doesn t follow the Bluebook, the Maroon Book, the Chicago Manual of Style, or any other style book, and doesn t want you to get hung up worrying about citation form. (He

More information

Paper No Entered: March 1, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper No Entered: March 1, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 51 571-272-7822 Entered: March 1, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DOUGLAS DYNAMICS, L.L.C. and DOUGLAS DYNAMICS, INC.,

More information

Paper: Entered: Jan. 5, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper: Entered: Jan. 5, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper: 11 571-272-7822 Entered: Jan. 5, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ARDAGH GLASS INC., Petitioner, v. CULCHROME, LLC, Patent

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, KONAMI DIGIT AL ENTERTAINMENT ) INC., HARMONIX MUSIC SYSTEMS, ) INC. and ELECTRONIC

More information

Paper Entered: August 28, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: August 28, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 45 571-272-7822 Entered: August 28, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD XACTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL

More information

Paper No Entered: January 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper No Entered: January 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 26 571-272-7822 Entered: January 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, Petitioner, v. ELBRUS

More information

Paper Entered: September 10, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: September 10, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 23 571-272-7822 Entered: September 10, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner, v. ROVI

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Petitioner,

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Petitioner, IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Petitioner, v. PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS, Patent Owner. Case IPR2015-00309 Patent U.S. 6,906,981 PETITION

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. HTC AMERICA, INC., Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. HTC AMERICA, INC., Petitioner, Trials@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 Paper 11 Date Entered: September 13, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HTC AMERICA, INC., Petitioner, v. VIRGINIA INNOVATION

More information

Appeal decision. Appeal No USA. Osaka, Japan

Appeal decision. Appeal No USA. Osaka, Japan Appeal decision Appeal No. 2014-24184 USA Appellant BRIDGELUX INC. Osaka, Japan Patent Attorney SAEGUSA & PARTNERS The case of appeal against the examiner's decision of refusal of Japanese Patent Application

More information

Ford v. Panasonic Corp

Ford v. Panasonic Corp 2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-1-2008 Ford v. Panasonic Corp Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-2513 Follow this and

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LUXSHARE PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LUXSHARE PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LUXSHARE PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD., Petitioner v. BING XU PRECISION CO., LTD., Patent Owner CASE: Unassigned Patent

More information

No IN THE ~uprem~ ~ourt o[ ~ ~n~b. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Petitioner, V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL., Respondents.

No IN THE ~uprem~ ~ourt o[ ~ ~n~b. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Petitioner, V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL., Respondents. ;:out t, U.S. FEB 2 3 20~0 No. 09-901 OFFiCe- ~, rile CLERK IN THE ~uprem~ ~ourt o[ ~ ~n~b CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Petitioner, V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL., Respondents. ON PETITION

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; Petitioner Paper No. Filed: Sepetember 23, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; Petitioner v. SCRIPT SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC Patent

More information

Paper Entered: 13 Oct UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: 13 Oct UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 33 571-272-7822 Entered: 13 Oct. 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC., Petitioner, v. UUSI, LLC, Patent

More information

Paper Entered: July 29, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: July 29, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8 571-272-7822 Entered: July 29, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION Petitioner, v. WI-LAN USA

More information

Paper Date Entered: January 29, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper Date Entered: January 29, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 45 571-272-7822 Date Entered: January 29, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MINDGEEK, S.A.R.L., MINDGEEK USA, INC., and PLAYBOY

More information

Paper No. 60 Tel: Entered: March 20, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper No. 60 Tel: Entered: March 20, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 60 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: March 20, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM IVHS INC., Petitioner, v. NEOLOGY,

More information

409 U.S S.Ct L.Ed.2d 273 Robert GOTTSCHALK, Acting Commissioner of Patents, Petitioner, v. Gary R. BENSON and Arthur C. Tabbot.

409 U.S S.Ct L.Ed.2d 273 Robert GOTTSCHALK, Acting Commissioner of Patents, Petitioner, v. Gary R. BENSON and Arthur C. Tabbot. 409 U.S. 63 93 S.Ct. 253 34 L.Ed.2d 273 Robert GOTTSCHALK, Acting Commissioner of Patents, Petitioner, v. Gary R. BENSON and Arthur C. Tabbot. Richard B. Stone, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Hugh B.

More information

Paper 91 Tel: Entered: January 24, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 91 Tel: Entered: January 24, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 91 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 24, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SHURE INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. CLEARONE, INC.,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Petitioner,

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Petitioner, IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Petitioner, v. PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS, Patent Owner. Case IPR2015-00311 Patent U.S. 6,906,981 PETITION

More information

Paper Entered: March 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: March 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 60 571-272-7822 Entered: March 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD BROADCOM CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. WI-FI ONE, LLC, Patent

More information

Techniques for Extending Real-Time Oscilloscope Bandwidth

Techniques for Extending Real-Time Oscilloscope Bandwidth Techniques for Extending Real-Time Oscilloscope Bandwidth Over the past decade, data communication rates have increased by a factor well over 10X. Data rates that were once 1Gb/sec and below are now routinely

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-JRK Case: 14-1612 Document: 106 555 Filed Page: 10/02/15 1 Filed: Page 10/02/2015 1 of 7 PageID 26337 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for

More information

(12) United States Patent

(12) United States Patent (12) United States Patent Ali USOO65O1400B2 (10) Patent No.: (45) Date of Patent: Dec. 31, 2002 (54) CORRECTION OF OPERATIONAL AMPLIFIER GAIN ERROR IN PIPELINED ANALOG TO DIGITAL CONVERTERS (75) Inventor:

More information

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner v. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner Patent No. 8,046,801 Filing Date:

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ITRON, INC., Petitioner. CERTIFIED MEASUREMENT, LLC, Patent Owner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ITRON, INC., Petitioner. CERTIFIED MEASUREMENT, LLC, Patent Owner UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ITRON, INC., Petitioner v. CERTIFIED MEASUREMENT, LLC, Patent Owner Case: IPR2015- U.S. Patent No. 6,289,453 PETITION

More information

illlllllllllllilllllllllllllllllillllllllllllliilllllllllllllllllllllllllll

illlllllllllllilllllllllllllllllillllllllllllliilllllllllllllllllllllllllll illlllllllllllilllllllllllllllllillllllllllllliilllllllllllllllllllllllllll USOO5614856A Unlted States Patent [19] [11] Patent Number: 5,614,856 Wilson et al. [45] Date of Patent: Mar. 25 1997 9 [54] WAVESHAPING

More information

AMENDMENT TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

AMENDMENT TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. ABSOLUTE SOFTWARE, INC., and Absolute Software Corp, Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants. v. STEALTH SIGNAL, INC., and Computer Security Products,

More information

USOO A United States Patent (19) 11 Patent Number: 5,850,807 Keeler (45) Date of Patent: Dec. 22, 1998

USOO A United States Patent (19) 11 Patent Number: 5,850,807 Keeler (45) Date of Patent: Dec. 22, 1998 USOO.5850807A United States Patent (19) 11 Patent Number: 5,850,807 Keeler (45) Date of Patent: Dec. 22, 1998 54). ILLUMINATED PET LEASH Primary Examiner Robert P. Swiatek Assistant Examiner James S. Bergin

More information

Case 5:17-cv LHK Document 63 Filed 03/05/18 Page 1 of 34

Case 5:17-cv LHK Document 63 Filed 03/05/18 Page 1 of 34 Case :-cv-0-lhk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION IMMERSION CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1303 APEX INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, RARITAN COMPUTER, INC., Defendant-Appellee. James D. Berquist, Nixon & Vanderhye P.C., of Arlington, Virginia,

More information

SHEPARD S CITATIONS. How to. Shepardize. Your guide to legal research using. Shepard s. Citations: in print. It s how you know

SHEPARD S CITATIONS. How to. Shepardize. Your guide to legal research using. Shepard s. Citations: in print. It s how you know SHEPARD S CITATIONS How to Shepardize Your guide to legal research using Shepard s Citations: in print It s how you know How to Shepardize Using Shepard s in Print Section 3 Using Shepard s in Print Differences

More information

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER I. BACKGROUND

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER I. BACKGROUND United States District Court, N.D. California. XILINX, INC, Plaintiff. v. ALTERA CORPORATION, Defendant. ALTERA CORPORATION, Plaintiff. v. XILINX, INC, Defendant. No. 93-20409 SW, 96-20922 SW July 30,

More information

(12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2012/ A1. MOHAPATRA (43) Pub. Date: Jul. 5, 2012

(12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2012/ A1. MOHAPATRA (43) Pub. Date: Jul. 5, 2012 US 20120169931A1 (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2012/0169931 A1 MOHAPATRA (43) Pub. Date: Jul. 5, 2012 (54) PRESENTING CUSTOMIZED BOOT LOGO Publication Classification

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MASIMO CORPORATION, Petitioner. MINDRAY DS USA, INC.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MASIMO CORPORATION, Petitioner. MINDRAY DS USA, INC. Filed: May 20, 2015 Filed on behalf of: MASIMO CORPORATION By: Irfan A. Lateef Brenton R. Babcock Jarom D. Kesler KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP 2040 Main Street, 14th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Ph.: (949)

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-1358 ERBE ELEKTROMEDIZIN GMBH and ERBE USA, INC., v. Appellants, INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, and Appellee. CANADY TECHNOLOGY, LLC and CANADY

More information

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. LINEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC, Plaintiff. v. BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al, Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:07cv222 Feb. 12, 2009. Edward W. Goldstein,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit WASICA FINANCE GMBH, BLUEARC FINANCE AG, Appellants v. CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., SCHRADER-BRIDGEPORT INTERNATIONAL, INC., SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES

More information

Scholarly Paper Publication

Scholarly Paper Publication In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful Scholarly Paper Publication Seyyed Mohammad Hasheminejad, Acoustics Research Lab Mechanical Engineering Department, Iran University of Science & Technology

More information

F I L E D May 30, 2013

F I L E D May 30, 2013 Case: 12-10935 Document: 00512256851 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D May 30, 2013 Lyle

More information

Paper Entered: July 7, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: July 7, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 13 571-272-7822 Entered: July 7, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DEXCOWIN GLOBAL, INC., Petitioner, v. ARIBEX, INC., Patent

More information

Paper 31 Tel: Entered: March 9, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 31 Tel: Entered: March 9, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 31 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: March 9, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TOSHIBA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. OPTICAL DEVICES,

More information

Case 1:05-cv RCL Document 228 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 100 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:05-cv RCL Document 228 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 100 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:05-cv-02310-RCL Document 228 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 100 GILBERT P. HYATT, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. ANDREI IANCU, Under Secretary of Commerce for

More information

(12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2005/ A1

(12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2005/ A1 (19) United States US 2005O105810A1 (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2005/0105810 A1 Kim (43) Pub. Date: May 19, 2005 (54) METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CONDENSED IMAGE RECORDING AND REPRODUCTION

More information

Legality of Electronically Stored Images

Legality of Electronically Stored Images Legality of Electronically Stored Images Acordex's imaging system design and user procedures are important in supporting legal admissibility of document images as business records or as evidence. Acordex

More information

(12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2006/ A1. (51) Int. Cl. SELECT A PLURALITY OF TIME SHIFT CHANNELS

(12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2006/ A1. (51) Int. Cl. SELECT A PLURALITY OF TIME SHIFT CHANNELS (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: Lee US 2006OO15914A1 (43) Pub. Date: Jan. 19, 2006 (54) RECORDING METHOD AND APPARATUS CAPABLE OF TIME SHIFTING INA PLURALITY OF CHANNELS

More information

Paper Entered: March 10, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: March 10, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 49 571-272-7822 Entered: March 10, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD XILINX, INC. Petitioner v. INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC

More information

NOTICE. The above identified patent application is available for licensing. Requests for information should be addressed to:

NOTICE. The above identified patent application is available for licensing. Requests for information should be addressed to: Serial Number 09/311.900 Filing Date 14 May 1999 Inventor Gair P. Brown Yancy T. Jeleniewski Robert A. Throm NOTICE The above identified patent application is available for licensing. Requests for information

More information

PAPER: FD4 MARKS AWARD : 61. The skilled person is familiar with insect traps and is likely a designer or manufacturer of insect traps.

PAPER: FD4 MARKS AWARD : 61. The skilled person is familiar with insect traps and is likely a designer or manufacturer of insect traps. PAPER: FD4 MARKS AWARD : 61 Construction The skilled person is familiar with insect traps and is likely a designer or manufacturer of insect traps. What would such a skilled person understand the claims

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. VSR INDUSTRIES, INC. Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. VSR INDUSTRIES, INC. Petitioner UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD VSR INDUSTRIES, INC. Petitioner v. COLE KEPRO INTERNATIONAL, LLC Patent Owner U.S. Patent No. 6,860,814 Filing Date: September

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION Lindsley v. TRT Holdings, Inc. et al Doc. 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SARAH LINDSLEY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-2942-B TRT HOLDINGS, INC. AND

More information

Paper Entered: October 11, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: October 11, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 34 571-272-7822 Entered: October 11, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner, v. ROVI

More information

Paper Entered: April 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: April 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 41 571-272-7822 Entered: April 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD QSC AUDIO PRODUCTS, LLC, Petitioner, v. CREST AUDIO, INC.,

More information

WEBSITE LOOK DRESS DRESSING TRADE EEL : RESSING? T I M O T H Y S. D E J O N G N A D I A H. D A H A B

WEBSITE LOOK DRESS DRESSING TRADE EEL : RESSING? T I M O T H Y S. D E J O N G N A D I A H. D A H A B WEBSITE LOOK AND FEEL EEL : TRADE DRESS OR WINDOW DRESSING RESSING? 1 T I M O T H Y S. D E J O N G N A D I A H. D A H A B O R E G O N S TAT E B A R, I P S E C T I O N D E C E M B E R 2, 2 0 1 5 STOLL BERNE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD In re Post-Grant Review of: ) ) U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464 ) ) Issued: December 2, 2014 ) ) Inventor: Ingemar J. Cox ) ) Application No. 13/800,573 ) )

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 15-1072 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 04/27/2015 Appeal No. 2015-1072 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit HARMONIC INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. AVID TECHNOLOGY, INC., Patent Owner-Appellee,

More information

Trial decision. Invalidation No Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan 1 / 28

Trial decision. Invalidation No Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan 1 / 28 Trial decision Invalidation No. 2016-800070 Demandant FUJIFILM CORPORATION Patent Attorney KOBAYASHI, Hiroshi Patent Attorney KUROKAWA, Megumu Attorney KATAYAMA, Eiji Attorney HATTORI, Makoto Attorney

More information

Using Broadest Reasonable Interpretation to Your Advantage in Patent Prosecution

Using Broadest Reasonable Interpretation to Your Advantage in Patent Prosecution Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Using Broadest Reasonable Interpretation to Your Advantage in Patent Prosecution Establishing Scope of Claims, Preserving Enforceability THURSDAY,

More information

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 6,275,266 B1

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 6,275,266 B1 USOO6275266B1 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: Morris et al. (45) Date of Patent: *Aug. 14, 2001 (54) APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR 5,8,208 9/1998 Samela... 348/446 AUTOMATICALLY DETECTING AND 5,841,418

More information

Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property Intellectual Property A SURVEY OF THE LAW 2017 CASE UPDATE SUPPLEMENT Ned Snow CAROLINA ACADEMIC PRESS Durham, North Carolina Copyright 2017 Carolina Academic Press, LLC All Rights Reserved Carolina Academic

More information

( InfoSystems Translation )

( InfoSystems Translation ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION RETROLED COMPONENTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. PRINCIPAL LIGHTING GROUP, LLC Defendant. Civil Case No. 6:18-cv-55-ADA JURY TRIAL

More information

Spectral Sounds Summary

Spectral Sounds Summary Marco Nicoli colini coli Emmanuel Emma manuel Thibault ma bault ult Spectral Sounds 27 1 Summary Y they listen to music on dozens of devices, but also because a number of them play musical instruments

More information

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, v. SUMIDA CORPORATION. Civil Action No. 2:03-CV-07 March 8, 2005. Otis W. Carroll, Jr., Jack Wesley Hill, Ireland

More information

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 6,406,325 B1

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 6,406,325 B1 USOO6406325B1 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 6,406,325 B1 Chen (45) Date of Patent: Jun. 18, 2002 (54) CONNECTOR PLUG FOR NETWORK 6,080,007 A * 6/2000 Dupuis et al.... 439/418 CABLING 6,238.235

More information

AN ARTISTIC TECHNIQUE FOR AUDIO-TO-VIDEO TRANSLATION ON A MUSIC PERCEPTION STUDY

AN ARTISTIC TECHNIQUE FOR AUDIO-TO-VIDEO TRANSLATION ON A MUSIC PERCEPTION STUDY AN ARTISTIC TECHNIQUE FOR AUDIO-TO-VIDEO TRANSLATION ON A MUSIC PERCEPTION STUDY Eugene Mikyung Kim Department of Music Technology, Korea National University of Arts eugene@u.northwestern.edu ABSTRACT

More information